Yes, but scarcity is a relative term. Something is scarce because it is insufficient. And insufficiency is non-sufficiency. And here you go down the same stairs as with all other words. I say that if justice

But, abundance speaks of resources and scarcity speaks of the absence of resources, so they don't speak exactly of the same thing but of something similar. The colour red is absent for those who have no

:)

I was about to mention permaculture, which is a term with which I am not very familiar but I know thanks to Steem(it). That's a form of ecological progress.

I'm with you. For me a more progressive world is a more ecological world. Economism is a hard nut to crack. Progress should not be seen only in productive or economic factors. There is a wider world than

Interesting. It would be necessary to see whether the advance in medications brought only a decrease in autoimmune diseases, or brought progress in general. Although I agree with you, although the change

I say it to clarify things.

The reason is that I am not of your opinion that we die and are reborn every second or less. I just need a rebuttal to drop that thought.

I understand what you mean.

What knowing? The "I don't know what" that is the essence?

Also, if you think that that "you" is long gone, while the traces were left, that means the traces didn't see change, which means that not everything is changing all the time. And that some parts

Thanks! Interesting way of perceiving the world, by the way. It's like Heraclitus maxim; "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Although

Yes, maybe that is it, it is easier to live in three different times (past, present and future) than to live in the eternal present. If not, stay silent for a minute and you will see how fast thoughts

Right. Now I understand what you say.

Interesting, indeed. The distinction I make does not start from a past or present use of the word, but from the premise that the truth is one, eternal and immutable, while there are many true things, and

If you imagine that you would meet your eight-year-old "I", how could you say that it was "you"? With the decades of experience and impressions in between. Easy. We are not experiences

At all. I like this topic too. I can't find how memory can be a communal construction. When I am alone and actively remember something, memory does not differ in anything from a thought, and is as individual

Now I don't remember, I have a bad memory :) But surely the mirror thing happened to me.

If we cannot say that you are the same of the past, when did the change occur? When did the previous one die and appear the you of now? If there is no essence or anything that lasts, that means that each

But if there is no essence, how can we say that at 5 or 12 years it was you? If there is nothing left of that, and you are completely a different person, how can we say that it is you? Look for what connects